WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 30: National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre (L) testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during hearing about gun control on Capitol Hill January 30, 2013 in Washington, DC. Shooting victim and former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) delivered an opening statment to the committee, which met for the first time since the mass shooting at a Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

When it comes to gun control, the enduring political maxim "We have met the enemy and he is us" holds very true. All the anger directed at the National Rifle Association, all the venom, all the fury miss a key point - the gun-control movement is as much to blame for the failure to regulate gun ownership as the NRA.

For years the NRA has outworked, outspent and, most importantly, outfoxed the gun-control lobby. The NRA plays politics better and smarter than just about anyone else in Washington. The gun-control lobby plays politics worse than just about anyone.

The crux of the problem is that the gun-control lobby has chosen to be wholly dependent on the Democratic Party, while the NRA - although primarily supporting Republicans - actively and aggressively seeks out Democrats to support. The last thing the NRA wants is to be completely reliant on one party. By supporting a key group of Democrats, the NRA not only has a voice in the Democratic caucus but also forces the Republicans to support them right down the line - after all, GOP leaders have nowhere else to go.

The NRA has shown it can and will support a Democrat over a Republican - and win. Thus, the NRA is both courted and feared. After the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress, no less a figure than Rahm Emanuel, then chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, crowed about how key NRA support was to the Democrats' victory.

Where is the gun-control lobby in all this? Nowhere.

It has no influence, not even a voice, in the Republican congressional caucus. As a result, the Democrats take it completely for granted. Since 2006, the Democrats have controlled the House four years, the Senate all six years, and the presidency for four years - with two years of complete control. The number of attempts until now at gun control? Zero.

For the past 12 years, the gun-control lobby has scored precisely zero victories in Washington. Its supposed ally, the Democratic Party, has neither enacted nor even seriously proposed a single gun-control initiative. In President Obama's first term, gun control wasn't just a low priority - it was no priority. And all because the gun-control lobby had nowhere else to turn.

Only in the wake of mass murder has the gun-control lobby been able to get on the presidential and congressional agendas.

If the gun-control lobby wants to be relevant and stay on the issue agenda, it needs to play on both sides of the political aisle. The gun-control lobby is going to have to find Republican members of Congress it can support - it has to prove it can elect Republicans. Only then will it be able to force the Democrats to take it seriously.

And, believe it or not, the Republican congressional leadership would welcome its support. The Republican leadership would never admit it publicly, but they have always resented being under the thumb of the NRA.

The NRA, however, has a proven track record of electing its allies and defeating its enemies. The gun-control movement has no such track record and definitely no credibility with Republicans.

There is a significant temptation for the gun-control lobby to support only gun-control Democrats and hope for a clean sweep in the next election. The problem with that strategy is that the Democratic Party will still have plenty of NRA Democrats in it - many of whom are key senators. That strategy keeps the gun-control lobby dependent on one party. And there is no guarantee the Democrats will gain control and continue to control Congress. Both parties have adapted over the years to be competitive, with neither party having the ability to establish itself as the permanent party of government.

The Democratic Party will always be the home for those who want the most restrictive gun-control laws, while the Republican Party will always be the home of those who want no restrictions. There is plenty of room between those two extremes in each party - which is clearly shown by the number of NRA Democrats in Congress. By pursuing a one-party strategy, the gun-control lobby is conducting a risky and ultimately futile political strategy.

The gun-control lobby has some tough medicine to take. To become relevant, it is going to have to back Republican incumbents over "better" Democratic challengers (of course, the NRA has been supporting Democratic incumbents over "better" Republican challengers for years).

However, if the gun-control lobby doesn't change the way it practices politics and diversify away from the Democrats, it will remain dependent on tragedies like Newtown to be relevant. Isn't that the toughest medicine of all?